Abstract : Pay for performance P4P applied to outpatient care has emerged in the 2000s and has experienced strong growth over the past decade. It was introduced in France under optional form through the Improvement of Individual Contracts Practice CAPI in 2009 and was generalized in 2012 with the Compensation on Public Health Objectives ROSP. Its principle is to allocate additional compensation to doctors in exchange for a better quality of their practice, the latter being measured from a set of indicators. The principles of justice and beneficence that could be strengthened in this context seem in tension with the principle of autonomy. P4P can be regarded as an additional tool to standardize medical practices while reinforcing the exclusion of any singularity. We first asked general practitioners on the notion of medical standard. They appeared to live with the concept without expressing the need to clarify it. They felt that a strict standardization of their practice was impossible. The ethical considerations have structured their statements. We then analyzed the nature of the obstacles to the signature of CAPI from a panel of over 1,000 general practitioners. We identified two profiles of doctors: those feeling ethical risks as generally low and agreeing to sign 31.7% and those perceiving them strong, refusing to sign 68.3%. The lack of patient information concerning the adherence of their doctor to a P4P contract was the main risk perceived by the non-signatories. Then, we investigated the impact of P4P on a variable associated with the quality of care: the consultation length. Our main result was that the CAPI has not had a significant impact on the consultation length. Finally, we interviewed patients directly. Their opinion was very divided, some thought the allocation of a bonus could improve certain practices such as prevention and screening, others being fundamentally hostile to this principle they considered going against the values care.